Call of Duty 4 vs Call of Duty World at War.

[BartS4177]

This thread is to express my hate on Treyarch and my disapointment on Infinity Ward. First off why would Infinity Ward let Treyarch make another game in the main CoD series, didn't they learn their lesson from CoD 3? Does Treyarch even try to make good games? Here let me just explain why I think CoD WaW should be buried in New Mexico.
1. No story at all, nope, just go fight some Germans and Japanesse, at least in CoD 4 you had an overall goal and a primary antagonist.
2.If CoD Waw was a good game it was even shorter than CoD 4, I'm glad since it was a bad game.
3. not sure if they were already developing it but why return to WWII when Modern War turned out to be such a sucess?
4.CoD WaW multiplayer is CoD 4 multiplayer in disguise. Change the maps, take away 10 levels, and turn dogs into helicopters then you have CoD 4 multiplayer.
5. Not sure if it's just me but it's not as fun and addicting ad CoD 4 multiplayer, I went to the 4th prestige and about 20 levels in CoD 4. In CoD WaW I turned lieutenant and quit out of boredom.
The only thing I can say I like about CoD WaW is Nazi Zombies-fun and creative, now if the rest and the game had been like that.

Thank you for reading my rant and post your opinions if you like.

 

[Drbog]

You may have just bred a flamewar of epic proportions and yes,W@W sucks.

 

[Teh_Doomage]

You'll need your flame shield for this one.

My thoughts, I don't consider them in the same league. Treyarch games and IW games are two separate time lines, 1,2,4, great. 3, WaW, just mediocre.

 

[captain awesome 12]

While I agree with most of your points I think it's pretty much understood now that CoD4 is better than CoD:WaW. There really isn't much of a reason to make another thread about why WaW wasn't as good, we get it. That being said, I'll try and address a few of your gripes from Treyarch's point of view.

1. It's a WW2 game, what were you expecting? Obviously in CoD4 they could have a story and protagonist because it wasn't historically based.
2. They were basically the same length if that's what your asking, yes they had very short campaigns but they're CoD games. Also, I think the game deserves some merit, it wasn't that bad. However it's all subjective so you may think that if you wish.
3. The Pacific theatre and the end of WW2 hadn't truly been explored yet, and it would have pissed a shitload of fans off had Treyarch tried to duplicate Modern Warfare.
4. If it ain't broke don't fix it I guess?
5. You got bored with it. A lot of other people didn't.

As I said, I agree with most of what you're saying. CoD4 is vastly superior and most everyone with a brain who's played it knows that.

Granted, I did enjoy the airplane level in WaW.

The best part about the game, and the only thing that made me enjoy the campaign.

 

[Doc Theta Sigma]

1. No story at all, nope, just go fight some Germans and Japanesse, at least in CoD 4 you had an overall goal and a primary antagonist.

You're serious? It's set in WORLD WAR TWO. I think everybody knows what the overall goal is and who the primary antagonist is. World War Two is a historical fact, you can't just make up a random story about it.

 

[BartS4177]

1. No story at all, nope, just go fight some Germans and Japanesse, at least in CoD 4 you had an overall goal and a primary antagonist.

You're serious? It's set in WORLD WAR TWO. I think everybody knows what the overall goal is and who the primary antagonist is. World War Two is a historical fact, you can't just make up a random story about it.

I mean on a more personal level.

 

[LokiSeto]

1. No story at all, nope, just go fight some Germans and Japanesse, at least in CoD 4 you had an overall goal and a primary antagonist.

You're serious? It's set in WORLD WAR TWO. I think everybody knows what the overall goal is and who the primary antagonist is. World War Two is a historical fact, you can't just make up a random story about it.

It's historical fact yes... but this is a GAME! I mean there's the Nazi Zombies. How historical is that? I think when they added that bonus into it they threw historical fact out the window. Atleast they could have made something a little different. Get away from the battles that people know and get to the missions that we don't know or create something up in that slot.

And yes it may have been WW2 but atleast give something more then just "kill nazi's because this is WW2 and you already know everything so why bother telling you".

 

[Archaon6044]

aren't there enough WW2 games without making more?

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

I'm just waiting for COD 6: In Space.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Look, W@W is clearly not as good as MW. However, I still play it, and am a level 40 first prestige because my friends play it. If they were still playing MW I wouldn't give this game a second glance.